I haven't seen many games I've called 'genre pushing' released since 2000. I could maybe think of a few games if I spent some time at it, but...

Look harder.

Quote from: "MeshGearFox"

As for exclusives, I meant what Eusis said.

Uh.. that Wii needs more exclusives? I'm not sure what you mean, but I'll say it again, Console architecture is different and exclusivity hurts the game.

Quote from: "MeshGearFox"

I also have to admit that I'm really not one to be that impressed by technology. I mean, it's nice having really fast processors and tons of memory, but it's nothing unexpected. It's been a pretty steady progression. Software wise, the technology's also being used in a pretty predictable way. They're creating really pretty and quite fast 3D games with hardware that's specifically made to do really pretty 3D games as fast as possible.

I guess my problem is that they're spending all of this money on games, getting the A/V aspects more immersive, but the gameplay's still the same stuff we've been seeing for almost a decade now.

If you don't think that gameplay has evolved from the PSX/N64 Era, I pity you, and I pity whatever poor games you play. I honestly can't even think up a reply for this.

Quote from: "MeshGearFox"

But I'm not really sure why I need incredibly detailed water shaders or lip animation to be immersed.

You really annoy me, writing off hardware capabilities as miniscule animations or shaders. Never mind games capture entire body movement, or have hundreds more animations in one character than last gen, or have draw distances that go off into the distance for miles and miles. Never mind that computer AI evolves and reacts to the player, and never mind realistic physics, streamlined online play, downloadable content that extends the game experience, never mind that all. Lets all just play the same crap. Why? Because you don't want developers to push the envelope, you don't want developers to make better games. Because that's what it comes down to. Be it a little shader, or a bit more detailed water, those techniques and that detail will be shared and continue on in future games, and they will also look better in time.

Why? Because you don't want developers to push the envelope, you don't want developers to make better games.

This is completely wrong. Stop telling me what I'm thinking. You're misinterpreting me, and I don't like that.

You seem to be under the assumption that I'm just ignoring these things you're talking about. I'm not ignoring them.

Quote

Never mind games capture entire body movement, or have hundreds more animations in one character than last gen, or have draw distances that go off into the distance for miles and miles.

Motion capture's relatively new for games, but as a concept, it's not that new, and it's been used in movies for a long time. The additional animation is nice, sure, and so are the large view distances.

How, though, do these matter at all on the gameplay front?

Quote

Never mind that computer AI evolves and reacts to the player, and never mind realistic physics, streamlined online play, downloadable content that extends the game experience, never mind that all.

Realistic physics is, certantainly, realistic, but I've yet to actually see anything besides, say, Gmod, this gen, use physics in an interesting way -- it's mostly been ragdoll physics and stuff like oblivion's traps which I've never actually seen work properly. Exile probably has one of the most interesting uses of game-physics I've seen, and that game's from '88.

Physics aren't that hard to model, though. I mean, Frontier: Elite 2 and Frontier: First Encounters had quite realistic Newtonian phyiscs for space flight (Which, I believe, isn't particularly common. Partially because whether or not it's fun is debatable, but eh).

I'm not sure what sort of games you're refering to, when you say AI. Of the top of my head, I can't really think of any PS2 or GC RPGs with adaptive AI. I don't play much in the way of FPSes on consoles because the controls don't really jive with me for it, but, say, Metroid Prime 1 and 2 don't have adaptive AI, I know. Very obvious pattern-based enemies. Same for the Zeldas.

On the PC front, Unreal and Half-Life both had pretty strong AI, but that was some time ago, and I don't think they were adaptive, either. I also hear Half-Life's AI is almost entirely based on what sort of path-nodes you have set up or something. UT2K4's bots were strong, but not really revolutionary. Call of Duty 2 had pretty standard AI. Same for 1. Strong, but nothing really revolutionary. More often than not, I read reviews and here complaints about the AI in a lot of new games.

Now, I do remember some very interesting simulations from the mid-nineties with really interesting AI. Creatures 1 and 2 come to mind. Galapagos was also relatively interesting adventure sort of game based around operant conditioning.

Truthfully though I don't really remember a lot of games actually having adaptive AI, so I'm guessing this is a feature from Halo or something.

I also seem to recall a few games apparently recording play styles or something, saving them across game sections, and tweaking the AI as per whatever got found in the recorder play styles, but I don't know if this feature was ever actually implemented, and I haven't heard of it in any recent games.

Downloadable content... Well, that's been around since the internet took off in the late 80s. Nethack has sharable bones files. Adventure had... user-made mods, I guess. That's not really the internet, though. Anyway. A lot of games had free mission pack type things. GalCiv I and II are recent examples. Daggerfall and some various strategy games are older ones. Morrowind also had a fair amount of free, official mods. Also, I'm not even mentioning the extremely massive freeware games scene.

The modern incarnation seems to lead to things like GTA editions that ship without content. Er, no thanks. I'd prefer stay in the days when downloadable addon content was free.

And streamlined internet play? Again, relatively newer, but nothing THAT new. Battle.net's an ooooold service. Sierra's Wow service had a decent run, I guess. Gamespy arcade's also been around for some time. I don't think modern player-matching systems STARTED with UT99, but they've been around since at least that long.

Basically, though, I'm really not ignoring the technological advancements. I'm just not impressed by what people are doing them. I don't think most devs are pushing the systems to their limits at all. They're using the hardware exactly how it's meant to be used, and not really going beyond it at all.

Also, even IF the CGIs in games get prettier, that doesn't mean the art directions going to get any better either. If you're a crappy artist or suck at 'directing' CGIs, it doesn't matter if you're working with low-poly, flat-shaded models on a PS1, or highly detailed models on a PS3.

Quote

Be it a little shader, or a bit more detailed water, those techniques and that detail will be shared and continue on in future games, and they will also look better in time.

Sure, that's dandy, but I'm not going to spend 60 dollars on a game just so I can look at the water (Unless we're talking some incredibly unlikely sequel to Aquanaut's Holiday or something).

Logged

o/` I do not feel joy o/`o/` I do not dream o/`o/` I only stare at the door and smoke o/`

C'mon guys let's try to act our ages--or, if not, act in accordance to a mature age. Let's not have this discussion degrade into mudslinging and insults.

Alisha's topic was a valid observation and complaint, one that was able to be explored and discussed intelligent and brought to sound, factual causes for whycompanies choose to change up their styles despite previous success. It's called discourse, and I welcome it on Message Boards over "what's your favorite!" polls.

Anyone here who knows me (or still remembers me) can tell you that it's pretty impossible to offend me, personally. I just don't care to see sophomoric behavior and the degradation of a perfectly viable topic. Not that it's my job to police these boards--old habits just die hard.

Physics aren't that hard to model, though. I mean, Frontier: Elite 2 and Frontier: First Encounters had quite realistic Newtonian phyiscs for space flight (Which, I believe, isn't particularly common. Partially because whether or not it's fun is debatable, but eh).

There is a gargantuan difference between a simplified physics model for a single object and trying to realistically simulate the movements of the human body. Modeling what happens in response to impacts is incredibly complex- which is why we get grossly simplified models like rag-doll physics.

Anyone here who knows me (or still remembers me) can tell you that it's pretty impossible to offend me, personally. I just don't care to see sophomoric behavior and the degradation of a perfectly viable topic. Not that it's my job to police these boards--old habits just die hard.

i normally don't get angry like that but this was something that built up over time with people saying i am bitching every time i don't like something.

back on topic i can think of a few games where making things more complicated actually made the game worse than its predesessor(sp?)

Logged

“Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from.”

--Every Wild Arms after the original! :) And if that weren't enough, they went back and besmirched the glory of the original Wild Arms with an ass-tastic remake that incorporated that awful world map search... phenomenon...thing. I mean c'mon--the god damn town is RIGHT in front of you and you can't see it? Talk about suspension of belief. That kind of garbage takes me rightout of being immersed in a game.

I haven't touched WA:ACF, though I've been tempted when it was $15. Raised in price then vanished though, so I guess that'll be the one WA I never touch. I've said before I've liked WA2 and 3 a lot for some stupid reason, and I also think the search function would've been a nice idea for, you know, stuff that isn't blatantly visible for all to see. Yeah, I'm sure finding that giant tower atop a mountain is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. Should've just used it to find hidden items and maybe extra side dungeons hinted to by townspeople.

I haven't really played 4 though. The game's fun, but what little I've seen of the story already makes me cringe, and I suspect more could make me murderous.

WA:ACF is the second game I've played (Some GBA Harvest Moon being the first) where you hit a point and the text allocation tables fuck up and NPCs start speaking in complete gibberish. Stuff like: "good candy is an excellent ship. ²¤®ðð¡. Head east of Neutchâfel to find". Being someone that obsesses over talking to every NPC, stuff like that really BOTHERS me.

Also, they took out various skills and things and generally removed a lot of the gameplay and replaced it with a bunch of additions which are only really there for the final dungeons. Yeys?

So yeah. It's not so much "Don't fix what isn't broken," as it is, "Don't fix something unless you seriously not what you're doing, otherwise you're likely to sever a thumb."

Logged

o/` I do not feel joy o/`o/` I do not dream o/`o/` I only stare at the door and smoke o/`

In terms of games where the gameplay mechanics had drastic changes each time:

Though these weren't RPGs, didn't a bunch of the Alex Kidd games do that? Like how Alex Kidd in Shinobi World does not play anything like the original Alex Kidd. There's been talk that this constant switching things up made people less interested in the series because it was inconsistent.

Although Alex Kidd for the Genesis was a solid return to form, many found it to be too little too late.

So when I think about it, changes over time for the FF series really weren't that drastic. On the other hand, the battle system change from Chrono Trigger to Chrono Cross was pretty drastic (but once I spent some time with CC's battle system, I dug it.) But my knee jerk reaction was not initially positive.

It's like how the Motley Crue album with John Corabi did not sound anything like a Crue album and the knee-jerk reaction was that it was complete shit. However, after getting over that and giving it another listen, I realized that it was easily the deepest album Motley Crue ever did and after reading The Dirt and a story on his (John Corabi) MySpace, I have a whole new respect for John Corabi now.

So I think the one thing that's been mentioned frequently that we can pretty much agree on is that change isn't a bad thing, but getting used to change takes time. So a sudden drastic change can be difficult.

On the other hand, the battle system change from Chrono Trigger to Chrono Cross was pretty drastic (but once I spent some time with CC's battle system, I dug it.)

Yeah, but there was a greater period of time between CT and CC than FFVI and FFVII, which is worth considering. Also, CT's original battle system was QUITE similar to the FF ATB system, so I imagine that they wanted to distance the game from the FF games they had at. Also, it did share some features with XG (sort of) which DID have some dev team from CT and CC on it, I believe? If that's the case, than the progression is somewhat more visible.

Logged

o/` I do not feel joy o/`o/` I do not dream o/`o/` I only stare at the door and smoke o/`